Staff ReportsCITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 960-7900
FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.d.shorewood.mmus • cityhaII@d.shorewood.mn.us -
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 27 June 2012
RE: Animal Control Regulations (Dogs and Cats)
FILE NO. City Code (Chapter 701)
Last year, the Planning Commission was asked to review and comment on Shorewood's regulations
pertaining to dogs. The discussion was initiated in conjunction with a request by the Council for
the Planning Commission to review various existing license requirements. The Commission's
conversation on this matter (see Planning Commission Minutes — Excerpt, dated 20 September
2011 — Exhibit A, attached) was forwarded to the Council without any specific code changes. The
City Council then directed the City Administrator to work with other South Lake Administrators
and the SLMPD to try and come up with a more uniform set of regulations that could be applied to
the South Lake communities.
The SLMPD has asked that the cities review the attached Draft Uniform Animal Control Proposal
(Exhibit B, attached). The Planning Commission will begin its review of the ordinance at its
meeting on Tuesday. For purposes of comparison, you are directed to Chapter 701 of the City
Code. It is worth noting that the draft code also addresses cats. Staff is biting its collective tongues
on that one.
Cc: William Joynes
Scott Zerby
0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
4. DISCUSSION -
Director Nielsen reported that an
without the presence of the speed
eliminating the concern that the s]
said the average speed remained i
remain unchanged in terms of the
from the latest study was forward
available by the next meeting.
The Commission's consensus
HILLS TRAFFIC
iitional speed count was done in the Shady Hills neighborhood
ggy. There were only a couple of cables laying across the street,
,d buggy influences driver's behavior creating unrealistic results. He
hanged from the previous study, and staff recommendations also
;rage for the restricted turning movements. He said the raw data
to the Commission, but a detailed analysis will still be done and
await the detailed analysis before making a recommendation.
Hasek moved, Arnst seconded, to continue the public meeting regarding Shady Hills Traffic to
October 4, 2011. Motion passed 6/0.
5. CITY CODE
- DOG REGULATIONS (Chapter 701)
Director Nielsen reviewed his st report stating that the City Council has recently been reviewing
ordinances that require a license I y the City for the purpose of determining if they are still valid or need
updating. Due to a number of questions raised relating to Chapter 701 - Dog Regulations, that Chapter
has been referred to the Planning ommission for review and comment.
Nielsen stated that one of the que4tions was whether the City should continue to require dogs to be
licensed. He noted that four of th other South Lake communities (Tonka Bay, Excelsior, Greenwood,
and Deephaven) all require dog li enses.
Nielsen said the current code allo s up to two dogs, each requiring an annual license. For over two and
up to four dogs, a kennel license i required. Under special conditions the code allows for more than four
dogs and does not state a limit on a number of dogs and this is one of the areas that needs to be better
defined. One consideration is to evelop a multiple -dog license which would replace kennel license.
Administrator Heck added that some of the rationale for requiring dog licenses are the revenue, it's an
enforcement mechanism, and to consistent with surrounding cities' requirements.
Councilmember Woodruff said 1
remaining issues that need to be
In regard to dog kennels regulat
statutes.
Commissioner Hutchins said it's
less fees. They will either do it (
fine schedule, letting people kno
more of an impact than anything
Heck said that the City did have
that there is nothing in the curry
definition of a dangerous dog, b
said what is needed is language:
t the City Council has already decided to continue licensing dogs. The
[dressed are the cost of licenses and multiple -dog license regulations.
by the state, the code needs to be updated to reflect current state
liicult to encourage people to license their dogs by charging more or
not. Nielsen said one thing that's never been done is to publicize the
what the cost of violation is. Hutchins said he thought that may have
n incident regarding a potentially dangerous dog and it was discovered
City Code regulations that address this issue. State statutes provide a
it is up to local jurisdictions as to how they want to deal with it. He
the City Code that identifies potentially dangerous dogs and what the
Exhibit A
City requires if one is identified and reference the state statute for the dangerous dog classification
Commissioner Arnst asked if the City can decide how many dogs are allowed with a kennel license, or if
the state statutes override the number allowed. Nielsen clarified that what the state deems a kennel is
actually for boarding and breeding of dogs and other similar activity. The Code needs to be updated
using the term multiple -dog license to regulate households with more than two dogs, but the maximum
number of dogs allowed needs to be determined.
Chair Geng asked how many complaints the City has received about dogs. Heck said he has received
three complaints, although they may have been more about the neighbors themselves rather than the dogs.
He said the police department has data about calls made about dogs, but he doesn't have the impression
there is a huge problem. Arnst commented that the manner in which the police respond to complaints
makes it obvious who made the complaint which is discouraging to people needing to make a complaint.
Geng said he agrees with Hutchins in thinking a large fine or penalty is the most effective way to get
compliance with the regulations. Hutchins said he would rather see people rewarded for compliance,
such as a no -charge license, or valid for three years. But when dog owners do not comply and break the
law they pay a heavy fine.
Commissioner Davis said there is a big difference between having a few large dogs versus a few small
dogs. She said she is more concerned about the quality of care a dog is being provided and that they are
healthy, but unfortunately that is not something the City would be able to regulate.
Administrator Heck summarized the points of the Commission's discussion stating the City should
continue licensing dogs but possibly extend it to a three-year validity period to coincide with rabies
vaccine schedules; consider eliminating the license fee; address dangerous dog regulation; as far as the
number of dogs allowed per household, start with four dogs; delete any reference to kennel license; and
review penalty fees to consider increasing them.
Commissioner Hasek asked the Commission if they felt the City should continue to license dogs and the
response was mixed. Heck reiterated that the Council had already determined that the City will continue
licensing.
Commissioner Arrest said one of the benefits of requiring a license is the opportunity to provide the owner
with a copy of the regulations, including the penalty fee schedule.
Commissioner Hutchins noted that if there is to be no license fee, perhaps it's more a registration than a
licensing process.
Councihnember Woodruff said in a former City Council discussion, a reason for requiring the license was
to ensure dogs were vaccinated against rabies. He added that public education letting residents know that
licenses can be obtained via the website would help. Regulations against barking, running at large, etc.
are covered by the Code whether a dog is licensed or not.
6. ZONING CODE DISCUSSION - DYNAMIC SIGNS
Over the past several meetings the Commission has been discussing a number of issues associated with
dynamic signs. Director Nielsen provided draft language for a Zoning Code text amendment based on
those discussions for the purpose of review.
SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA
POLICE DEPARTMENT
24150 SMITHTOWN ROAD
SHOREWOOD, MN 55331-8598
MEMORANDUM
TO: Coordinating Committee Members
FROM: Lt. David W.Pierson
CSS David Hohertz
DATE: June 21, 2012
RE: Draft Uniform Animal Control Proposal
BRYAN T. LITSEY
Chief of Police
Office (952) 474-3261
Fax (952) 474-4477
At the May 9, 2012 Coordinating Committee Meeting we informed the committee that we are
continuing our efforts to update and standardize ordinances for animal control in all four cities.
We explained that this was being done to bring ordinances up to date with current laws and
regulations, as well as to standardize ordinances throughout our cities. Based upon the close
proximity of our neighborhoods we feel that a standardized ordinance would bring continuity to
the ordinances and clarity to citizens of our communities. We also felt that standardization of the
ordinances would make it much easier to educate our citizens and gain their compliance. Finally,
instead of our Community Service Officers (CSOs) having to enforce four different ordinances,
there would only be one common ordinance to interpret and enforce.
Since our last coordinating committee meeting CSS Hohertz and I have studied the animal
control ordinances from all four cities as well as Minnesota State Statutes relating to potentially
dangerous dogs and dangerous dogs. As we went through this evaluation process we found
several dissimilarities in the ordinances between the four cities. We also found dissimilarities
between city ordinances and state statutes. We felt that these dissimilarities result in an open
door to confusion on the part of our citizens and CSO's. An example of these dissimilarities
would be whereas the City of Shorewood allows cats to run at large. The City of Excelsior does
not. Another issue that has surfaced lately is how our ordinances handle Dangerous Dogs. City
of Greenwood ordinances does not allow dangerous dogs in their city with no avenue of appeal,
the City of Excelsior and Shorewood ordinances follows Minnesota State Statute for dealing
with dangerous dogs.
Attached to this memorandum is a draft ordinance proposal for animal control throughout the
Cities of Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay. The City of Greenwood's
ordinance was used as a template for this draft ordinance, however, elements were brought into
the draft proposal from Excelsior, Shorewood, Tonka Bay and Minnesota State Statutes.
Exhibit B
Serving the South Lake Minnetonka Communities of Excelsior, Greenwood,
so I'll H Uniform Animal Ordinance Proposal
p -LI for cities of
„bm
Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood, and Tonka Bay
Section
Abuse/neglect of animals
Dangerous dogs and potentially dangerous dogs
Animal breeders
Penalties for violation
[11
PURPOSE.
The city councils recognize and reaffirm that residents have rights to own,
harbor, and keep dogs, and that from time to time these animals may behave in
ways that constitute a public nuisance. It is the intent of this chapter to establish
regulations which will allow the keeping of animals within the city in a safe, clean,
and healthy manner. The cities recognize that certain types of animals require
regulations and standards to ensure that the health, safety, and welfare of the
public is protected and to promote the compatibility of land uses as it relates to
the keeping of animals. This chapter also addresses the conditions under which
noises by animals may be considered untimely.
DEFINITIONS.
For the purpose of this chapter, the followi
context clearly indicates or requires a diffE
ANIMAL CONTROL AUTHORITY. An,a
or other governmental subdivision of the
control operations in its jurisdiction.
ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT OFF
enforcement officers, animal coi
city council with enforcement of
ANIMAL SHELTER. Any
for the purpose of `mpour
ordinance.
F-M
apply unless the
meaning.
of the state, county, municipality
Nhich is responsible for animal
chief of. police, his designees, law
and other . personnel charged by the
:d by the City Council or the SLMPD
dogs held under the authority of this
off the property of the person
animal, and the animal is not under
CITY. The city of Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood, or Tonka Bay
animal that constitutes a physical threat to human
beings or domestic animals.
DANGEROUS DOG. Any dog that has:
(1) Without provocation, inflicted substantial bodily harm on a human being on
public or private property;
(2) Killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner's property;
or
(3) Been found to be potentially dangerous, and after the owner has notice that
the dog is potentially dangerous, the dog aggressively bites, attacks, or
endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals.
[2]
POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOG. Any dog that:
(1) When unprovoked, inflicts bites on a human or domestic animal on public or
private property;
(2) When unprovoked, chases or approaches a person, including a person on a
bicycle, upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public or private property, other than
the dog owner's property, in an apparent attitude of attack; or
(3) Has a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked,
causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic
animals.
DOG WASTE DEVICE. A device for removal of
DOMESTIC (DOMESTICATED) ANIMAL. Any offhe various animals including,
but not limited to, dogs and cats adapted so as to live with humans in a tame
condition.
NON -DOMESTIC (NON -DOMESTICATED) ANIMAL. Any animal, mammal,
amphibian, or reptile, which is of a species which is wild by nature'or.of a species
which due to size, vicious nature, or other characteristics is inherently: dangerous
to human beings.
PROPER ENCLOSURE. Securely confined indoo "" or in a securely enclosed
and locked pen or structure suitable to prevent the animal from escaping and
providing protection:from the elements for the d.og A proper enclosure does
not include a porch, patio,.or any part of a fiouse garage, or other structure
that would allow the dog to`exit of its own v'olition, or any house or structure
in which windows are,open o"r in which door or window
screens are the only obstacles that prevent.the dog from exiting.
OWNER. Any person, firm, or corporation owning, keeping, harboring,
possessing, having'an interest iih,,or acting as custodian or caretaker of a
domesticated or nondo,.esticated animal, or the parents or guardians of a
person under 18 years of age who owns, harbors, keeps, or has custody of a
domestic or riondomestic;animal, or any person who owns the property on which
a dog is harbored or kept .`
SUBSTANTIAL BODILY HARM. "Substantial bodily harm" means bodily injury
which involves a temporary but substantial disfigurement, or which causes a
temporary but substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily
member or organ, or which causes a fracture of any bodily member.
GREAT BODILY HARM. "Great bodily harm" means bodily injury which creates
a high probability of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or
which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any
bodily member or organ or other serious bodily harm.
[3]
PREMISES. A building, structure, shelter, or land where a dog or other
domesticated or non -domesticated animal is kept or confined, and specifically
excludes all public rights -of -way, sidewalks, and streets.
PROVOCATION. An act that an adult could reasonably expect may cause a dog
to attack or bite.
RESTRAINT. An animal is considered to be under restraint, provided that:
(1) It is on the premises of the person owning, keeping, harboring, or
maintaining the animal; or
(2) It is in a private motor vehicle of a person owning, harboring or keeping
the animal; or
(3) While it is on any public trail, sidewalk, the Southwest LRT Regional Trail,
in any city park, or along any pub lic'right-of-way (for example, along
roadways and streets), or any other property, public or private, which is
not the premises of the person owning, keeping, harboring, or
maintaining the animal, it is on a leash no greater than six feet in length.
SLMPD. The South Lake
ENFORCEMENT.
(a) The councils'sh
a contract with <
this chapter.
(b) No oerson shall
it animal enforcement officers and may enter into
or organization whose duties shall be to enforce
to take from an animal control officer or
1. police officer or any other authorized representative of the city any animal
taken up or apprehended in compliance with this chapter, or in any
'manner intentionally interfere with or hinder such persons in the discharge
of>their duties under this chapter.
(c) Citations are issued for certain violations. The animal control or police
officer is authorized to issue a citation to any person, firm, or entity for any
alleged violations of this chapter and any other ordinances or statutes
which provide the basis for prosecution of violations of this chapter.
Nothing within";this chapter shall be construed to limit the authority of
police officers to enforce any provisions of this chapter or related statutes
or ordinances.
REGISTRATION AND LICENSING REQUIREMENTS.
Subd. 1. Registration and license required. Every person who owns a dog over
the age of six months shall cause the dog to be registered and licensed as
hereinafter provided.
[4]
Subd. 2. License tag and fees. All dogs kept in this city, including those allowed
by private kennel license, shall be registered with the city clerk/treasurer or
his/her agent. The fee for the license shall be set by resolution of the city council.
Applications for licenses shall be made on forms approved by the city which shall
require the name and address of the owner; the name, breed, age, color, and
gender of the dog; and such other information as may be considered necessary.
License applicants shall also provide proof of compliance with the vaccination
requirements. The owner shall obtain a license and tag for each dog. The license
tag shall be securely attached around the dog's neck and kept there at all times
during the license period. If the tag is lost or stolen, the owner shall receive a
duplicate license and tag upon payment of a fee to the, city clerk/treasurer or
his/her agent. The fee for the duplicate license shall.pe:<set by resolution of the
city council.
Subd. 3. Rabies vaccination. Each applicationfor a dog must be accompanied
by a rabies certificate from a qualified vetrnarian showing that the animal has
been vaccinated against rabies. No dog;sh,611 be licensed which has not been
vaccinated as required by this section in the 24-month period immediately
preceding the date application for a license is made.
Subd. 4. Term of license TheJlicense period shall be for the whole or unexpired
portion of the year ending on the ensuing December 31.
Subd. 5. New residents of city. Any person who moves into and becomes a
resident of the city and°who owns a dog within the city shall cause the same to
be registered and licensed as provided hereinbefore within a period of not more
than 30 days after becoming a resident af'the city.
Subd. 6. Transfer of license The;license of any dog, licensed by the city, may be
transferred to a new owner of the licensed dog for the duration of that license.
The transfer is when the information regarding the new owner is filed with the city
clerk. The fee for license transfers shall be set by resolution of the city council.
Subd. 7. Revocation. Any person making any false statement on any license
application required by this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The city
clerk shall revoke any license issued under this section if the owner has made
any false statement on the license application. No refund of any fees shall be due
to the licensee whose license has been revoked.
Subd. 8. Reinstatement. Any person whose license has been revoked under
subsection (c) of this section may reapply for such license after all deficiencies
have been corrected. Any person making application after any revocation shall
follow the procedures set out for the initial issuance of the license and shall pay
the fees in the full amount that would be required for an original license.
[51
PERMITTED DOMESTICATED ANIMALS
(a) Any person may own, keep, harbor, or maintain any domesticated animal that
is not susceptible to rabies.
(b) Any person may own, keep, harbor, or maintain any domesticated animal
which is susceptible to rabies if it can be vaccinated for rabies, and it has been
vaccinated with a vaccine licensed for use specifically for that species of animal.
Based on current knowledge, the following animals can be legally vaccinated for
rabies: dogs, cats, ferrets, cattle, sheep, and horses. However, the latter three
are considered livestock, and therefore, not permitted in the city.
(c) It shall be unlawful to own, keep, harbor, or
which is susceptible to rabies and which has n
approved vaccine.
(d) Notwithstanding of the provisions
keep, harbor, or maintain any livesto
Rule 1515,3100.
PERMITTED NON-D;OMESTICA
(a) Any person may own, keep, hark
animal, provided that,lt weighs les§l
(b) It shall be unlawful to own, keep,
animal which weighs 50 pounds or r
any domesticated animal
iccinated with an
i, it sha
in Minn
MALS
awful to own,
�f Agriculture
in anv.non -domesticated
DOGS.
any non -domesticated
Sufd:`1. Within the:imits of the,,city, no person may possess, harbor, or keep
more than 2 dogs over the age of.6 months nor shall any single family residential
unit be host to more thae2 dogs over the age of 6 months unless the owners, or
if property is:;leased, the lessees, of real property shall have first obtained a
private kennel,license provided that in no event may any person possess, nor
may any single family residential unit be host to more than one animal that has
been declared potentially dangerous.
Subd. 2. Private Kennel license. Persons desiring to keep more than 2 dogs, but
in no event more than 3 dogs, must first obtain a private kennel license. An
application for a private kennel license shall include written authorization for the
city or animal enforcement officer to inspect the premises, which shall be valid for
the length of the license. Private kennel licenses may be issued by the city clerk
upon the applicant meeting the following conditions:
(a) Payment of an annual private kennel license fee as set by the city council by
resolution or ordinance;
[61
(b) Identification of the single family residential unit by address and property tax
ID number of the parcel to be licensed together with a signed application by the
applicant and, if different, the real property owners of the property to be licensed
(if the property is leased, the application must be signed by both the lessee and
the real property owner). The applicant, real property owner and lessee, must
certify the information provided to the city in the application and agree to be
bound by the terms and conditions of licensing, city ordinances and state laws
regarding animals.
(c) A description as to the type of facilities available for keeping the dogs
confined on the premises of the owner. Confinement means fencing of the yard
or kennel runs, and that the dogs cannot leave of their own volition. "Invisible
fence" type fencing is not acceptable for containment of more than 2 animals.
The city may require changes in the confinem,""ystem as a condition of
issuance or continued license validity. If the animals are known to have been
able to breach confinement or have otherwise caused disturbance to neighboring
property owners, animals, or the public, in general, the city may require the
licensee to change the confinement system on 30 days prior written notice.
Failure to make the required change shall cause the private kennel license to be
revoked. If an outdoor kennel is provided it must be: constructed of suitable
material to maintain and secure the keeping of dogs:;and to allow for sufficient
space for the dogs. Standards for adequate shelter for dogs is specified in M.S.
§ 343.40 and is adopted by reference, including any, amendments to that
section. The space must be inspected and approved by the animal enforcement
officer. All surfaces must be constructed of material to provide for proper
cleaning, drainage and maintenance and needs of the dogs. Kennel structures
must be located within the prescribed setback requirements for the property and
shall be located at least ten feet from the property boundary. All fences shall be
located entirely upon the property of the fence owner. No boundary line fence
shall be erected closer than three feet to an existing parallel boundary line fence.
(d) X.description and verification that each animal will have access to an
individuaLdog house or other suitable shelter from weather, as well as adequate
food and' r at all times
(e) Demonstration, of the method that the applicant will use for preventing the
dogs from running at large and/or causing a disturbance or nuisance to passers-
by, neighboring property owners, or the public in general. Owners must ensure
that dogs kept on licensed premises do not create a nuisance by excessive
barking or by creating unsanitary conditions.
(f) Fully paid dog licenses for each animal to be kept within the private kennel.
(g) Verification that the applicant and the real property owner of the site, at which
the private kennel is located, have had no violations of city or state regulations
regarding the keeping of animals or the behavior of such animals while in the
control or custody of either the applicant or the real property owner, or the real
property owner's lessee.
[7]
(h) Verification that the applicant and property owner do not possess more than
one potentially dangerous dog as defined under this ordinance.
Subd. 3. Denial of license. The city may deny any license request based upon
one or more of the following:
a. The animal enforcement officer finds the kennel facilities inadequate;
Conditions of the license are not met;
c. A nuisance condition is found to be
d. The kennel creates a public health
the animals in an unreasonable endangi
shall investigate all complaints and may
complaint has been received and found
the holder of the license shall appear be
their position. The appearance shall be
after notification of all contiguous propel
decide the status of the license.
Subd. 4. Revocation of privE
herein provided, violation of
termination of the
revoked. Revoca
owners. _
Subd. 5.
or
otherwise reissued to
estate parcel unless tl
otherwise vacated the
of
the dogs or owner;
hazard or has placed
al enforcement officer
ar violations. After a
the City Council
n 30 days of the
vners. The City
kennel license,
,state or explain
tiatcomplaint and
uncil>.will then
license. in` -addition to any other sanctions
terms of this chapter shall be grounds for
up to:three dogs .land the license may be
violation;attributable:to any dog kept by the
and Transfer of Private Kennel Licenses. Private
1.o one per single-family residential unit and in no
ate kennel license be issued per taxable real
tenses are not transferable and in the event of
E); such licenses may not be transferred or
otherwise resident in the single-family taxable real
ty has been sold or the former dog owner has
NUMBER OF CATS.
Within the limits of the city, an owner or household may not possess, harbor, or
keep more than 3 cats over the age of 6 months.
RUNNING AT LARGE.
No owner of any domesticated or non -domesticated animal shall permit such
animal to run or move at large at any time within the city. The finding of any
animal running at large shall be prima facie evidence of violation of this section
by the owner of the animal. It shall be no defense that the offending animal
escaped or is otherwise at large without the permission of its owner.
181
The animal enforcement officer shall have authority to take into custody and
impound those animals, found at large within the city. If the animal enforcement
officer is unable to take an animal into custody the officer may, where possible,
follow the animal to the property of its owner, and may issue a citation to the
owner for violation of this ordinance. The officer shall not be authorized to take
into custody an animal once it is upon the property of its owner except:
(a) Where the officer finds no one present upon the property and custody is
necessary to prevent the animal from further running at large; or
(b) The animal is a potentially dangerous animal or dangerous dog or animal;
(c) In those instances where such custody is required or permitted for the
health and welfare of the public.
ANIMAL NUISANCES.
Subd. 1. It shall be unlawful for any owner to fail to exercise proper care and
control of his animals to prevent them from becoming ,a public nuisance.
Subd. 2. It shall be considered;a nuisance for any animal to bark excessively,
continuously or untimely, to frequent school grounds, parks, or public beaches
without the owner or custodian of the animal present, to chase vehicles, to
chase, molest, annoy or bite any person if the person is not on the property of the
owner or custodian of:the;animal, to molest, defile or. destroy any property, public
or private, or to defecate inor upon public propertyor,the property of another
without being cleaned up immediately by the person in" charge of the animal. The
person having custody of thd.animal is responsible for disposing of the animal
feces in a sanitary manner. Failure;on the part of the owner or custodian to
prevent his animals from committing an, act of nuisance shall subject the owner
or custodian to the penalty hereinafter provided.
Subd. 3.The phrase to :bark excessively, continuously, or untimely" includes,
but is not limited to, barking, whining, howling, baying, crying, or making other
noise excessively, such that the creation of the noise by any single or
combination of dogs can be heard by any person, including a law enforcement
officer or animal control officer, from a location outside of the building or
premises where the dog is being kept and which noise occurs repeatedly over at
least a five minute period of time with one minute or less lapse of time between
each animal noise during the five minute period. "Untimely' includes, but is not
limited to, the noise which occurs repeatedly over a two -minute period of time
with one -minute or less lapse of time between each animal noise during the two -
minute period, between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
Subd. 4. The person having custody of the dog must have in their possession a
device for removal of dog feces when in or on any public trail, sidewalk, the
Southwest LRT Regional Trail, in any city park, or along any public right-of-way
(for example, along roadways and streets), or any other property, public or
191
private, which is not the premises of the person owning, keeping, harboring, or
maintaining the animal.
Subd. 5. No person shall allow any domesticated animal on any public swimming
beach or any public grounds where any prohibitory sign is posted, except a
recognized animal for life assistance.
CONFINEMENT OF CERTAIN ANIMALS.
Every female animal in heat shall be confined in a building or other secure
enclosure in such manner that such female animal cannot come into contact with
another animal, except for planned breeding.
IMPOUNDMENT AND REDEMPTION PROCEDURES.
Subd. 1. Authority to impound, citations. T
have authority to take into custody and, imj
the city. If the animal enforcement officer i
custody, he or she may, where possible f,
owner and may issue a citation to the own
Officer shall not be authorized to take into
property of its owner except where the offi
property and custody is necessary to prev
large or except in those,instances hereina
required or permitted for the health and w
animal enforcement officer shall
iund any animal found at large within
unable to take an animal into
low the animal to the property of its
r'fo.r:violation of this chapter: The
ustody an animal once it is upon the
ar finds no, one present upon the
nt the animal from further running at
ar prescribed where the custody is
fare of the public or of the animal.
Subd. 2. Pound The city shall; provide` an adequate pound or facilities where
animals taken into custody by an Animal Enforcement Officer shall be kept and
properly fed and cared for until disposed of according to the provisions of this
chapter.
Subd (3: Notice of impoundment: Within 24 hours after taking a dog into custody,
the animal, enforcement officer shall, if the animal has on it an official tag or
microchip identification notify the person shown as owner of the dog that the
animal is in his or her custody and will not be disposed of if redeemed within a
stated time, which.,time shall not be less than five full days after the animal was
taken into custody
Subd. 4. Redemption by owner. The owner of any animal seized pursuant to this
section may retrieve the animal from the city's animal impound shelter, provided
that the owner purchases the appropriate license within 7 days if the animal is
not already properly licensed, pays all impound fees to cover the cost of
apprehending the animal, boarding fees to cover the cost of sheltering the
animal, any veterinary costs incurred by the city, and any other costs incurred by
the city. Any owner who fails to comply with these requirements within five days
shall be deemed to have forfeited any property right to the animal and the city
may dispose of it pursuant to subdivision 5 of this section. In determining the
impounding fee, the city may establish a schedule of fees based on the number
of times a dog has been impounded. Boarding fees shall be according to a
schedule adopted and maintained by the SLMPD. License fees are adopted by
the council by resolution.
Subd. 5. Disposition of unclaimed or injured dogs. Upon expiration of the five day
period, a dog in the custody of the animal enforcement officer may be
surrendered to the Animal Humane Society or euthanized. Nothing in this chapter
shall prevent the animal enforcement officer from causing the dog to be
euthanized in less than five days waiting period as aforesaid where the animal is
injured and, in the opinion of the animal enforcement officer, the owner, or a
veterinarian, the only humane act would be one of euthanization.
Subd. 6. Records kept. The animal enforcement officer shall keep an accurate
account of all animals received at the pound and all animals euthanized or
released there from.
RABIES CONTROL. _.
Subd. 1. Rabies Vaccination Required.
Rabies vaccination required. It is unlawful for any person to own, keep, harbor, or
maintain any animal over the age o(six months which is susceptible to rabies
unless that animal has been vaccinated against rabies at least every 24 months,
unless otherwise specified by a licensed veterinarian.
Subd. 2. Quarantine of biting dogs.
a) Upon a written report being filed with the South Lake Minnetonka Police
Department stating that a dog has bitten a human being and setting forth
the narne: of the dog, if known; and the name and address of the owner
or custodiap;.if known, the name of the person bitten and when and
where the incident occurred, the animal enforcement officer shall order
the dog quarantined for a period of ten days. During quarantine, the
animal shall be securely confined and kept from contact with any other
animal..
b) At the discretion of the animal enforcement officer, the quarantine may
be on the premises of the owner. If the animal enforcement officer so
requires, the owner shall, at his or her own expense, place the animal in
a veterinary hospital for the period of confinement or surrender the
animal to the animal enforcement officer for confinement. The dog shall
not be released from confinement until a licensed veterinarian has
certified the animal to be free from rabies and until the owner has paid
the costs of any veterinary tests made upon the animal as well as the
costs of any confinement on premises other than that of the owner.
c) If the costs are not paid by the owner or custodian within ten days
following written notice to the owner or custodian that the dog is
available for release, the animal enforcement officer shall forthwith
cause the dog to be surrendered to the Animal Humane Society or to be
euthanized.
d) Any person who shall fail to deliver up to the animal enforcement officer
any dog which has bitten a human being and against which a sworn,
written complaint has been filed shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each
day's neglect or failure to comply with the provisions of this subdivision
shall be deemed a separate offense.
e) A dog or other animal displaying symptoms of being rabid, may be
seized at any place or time and shall be confined in the city impounding
facility at the expense of the owner until found to be free from rabies.
f) If a dog or other animal appears to be diseased; vicious, dangerous,
rabid, or has been exposed to rabies, and the dog or other animal
cannot be impounded without serious risk of personal injury, the dog or
other animal may be killed if reasonably necessary for the. safety of any
person or person.
Subd. 3. Rabies in city, proclamation.
The city adopts Minnesota statute 35.68 and 35.69 regarding rabies
proclamations.
ABUSEINEGLECT OF ANIMALS.
Subd. 1. Improper care.
Food. Animals must be provided with food of sufficient quantity and quality to
allow for normal growth and maintenance of body weight.
Water. 11 Animals must be provided with clean, fresh water in sufficient quantity to
satisfy the animal's needs or supplied by free choice. Snow or ice is not an
adequate water supply.
Shelter. Animals must be provided with proper shelter and protection from the
weather. A person in ciarge or control of any dog which is kept outdoors or
in an unheated enclosure shall provide the dog with shelter and bedding as
prescribed in this section as a minimum. The shelter shall include a moisture
proof and wind proof structure of suitable size to accommodate the dog and
allow retention of body heat. It shall be made of durable material with a solid,
moisture -proof floor or a floor raised at least two inches from the ground.
Between November 1 and March 31 the structure must have a windbreak at
the entrance. The structure shall be provided with a sufficient quantity of
suitable bedding material consisting of hay, straw, cedar shavings, blankets,
or the equivalent, to provide insulation and protection against cold and
[12j
dampness and promote retention of body heat. Shade from the direct rays of
the sun, during the months of May to October shall be provided.
Sanitation. It shall be unlawful for any person to allow food and water
receptacles, kennels, yards, or the premises where the animal is kept to be or to
remain in an unhealthy, unsanitary, or obnoxious condition, or to permit the
premises to be in such condition that obnoxious odors can be plainly detected on
adjacent public or private property.
Veterinary Care. Animals must be provided with veterinary care when needed to
prevent suffering.
Cruelty to animals. It shall be unlawful for any owner to beat, cruelly ill-treat,
torment or otherwise abuse any animal.
Animals in motor vehicles. A person may not leave an animal unattended in a
standing or parked motor vehicle in a manner that endangers the animal's health
or safety. When travelling, animals must be contained within the passenger
section of any vehicle or placed in crates or carriers of sufficient size to
accommodate the animal. Animals carried in open vehicles, including trucks,
boats, motorcycles, dirt bikes, trailers, etc., must be"restrained in a crate or
carrier or restrained by a chain or cable to prevent the animal from leaving the
vehicle or being tossed out.
Subd. 2. Removal of animals. A peace officer, animal enforcement officer, or a
volunteer or professional member of a 1.fire or; rescue department of a political
subdivision may use reasonable force to enter a motorvehicle and remove an
animal which has been left in the vehicle in violation of this section. A person
removing an. animal under this subdivision shall use reasonable means to contact
the owner of the'.animal to`arrange for'_its return home. If the person is unable to
contact the owner, the person may take the animal to an animal shelter.
DANGEROUS AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOGS.
The city is authorized pursuant to Minnesota statute section 347.53 to regulate
potentially dangerous and dangerous dogs.
POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOGS; REQUIREMENTS
Microchip Identification. The owner of a potentially dangerous dog must
have a microchip implanted in the dog for identification, and the name of the
microchip manufacturer and identification number of the microchip must be
provided to the animal control authority. If the microchip is not implanted by
the owner, it may be implanted by the animal control authority. In either
case, all costs related to purchase and implantation of the microchip must
be borne by the dog's owner.
[131
DANGEROUS DOGS; REQUIREMENTS
Subd. 1. Dangerous dogs prohibited. No person may possess, own, or harbor a
dangerous dog within the city. Upon receiving notice of a dangerous dog
declaration, the owner or harborer of a dog shall immediately remove the dog
from the city, unless the owner requests an appeal under subdivision 4 of this
section.
Subd. 2. Requirements during appeals process.
(a) While awaiting final disposition of an appeal of a dangerous dog declaration,
an owner of a dangerous dog shall keep the dog, while on the owner's property,
in a proper enclosure. If the dog is outside the prope(enclosure, the dog must be
muzzled and restrained by a substantial chain or leash and under the physical
restraint of a responsible person. The muzzle must be made in a manner that will
prevent the dog from biting any person or animal but that will not cause injury to
the dog or interfere with its vision or respiration.
(b) A person who transfers ownership of a dangerous dog must notify the
new owner that the animal control authority has identified the dog as
dangerous. The current owner must also notify the animal control authority
in writing of the transfer of ownership and provide the animal control
authority with the new owner's name, address, and telephone number.
Subd. 3 Notice. The authority declaring the dog dangerous shall give notice
of the declaration by delivering ormailing it to the owner of the dog, or by
posting a copy of
person residing;o
must include
(1) a description of
danaerous'doq'.dec
unde'-60ich the dog.was
and name of contact per
(2) a statement that the o
the dangerous,dog declai
the date of the notice will
section;
place where the dog is kept, or by delivering it to a
)perty, and telephoning, if possible, The notice
!ized dog; the authority for and purpose of the
nand seizure; the time, place and circumstances
declared dangerous; and the telephone number
son where the dog is kept;
ier of the dog may request a hearing concerning
on, and that failure to do so within 14 days of
rminate the owner's right to a hearing under this
(3) a statement that if an appeal request is made within 14 days of the
notice, the owner must immediately comply with the requirements of subd. 3
of this section and until such time as the hearing officer issues an opinion;
(4) a statement that if the hearing officer affirms the dangerous dog
declaration, the owner shall immediately remove the dog from the city.
(5) a form to request a hearing; and
[14]
(6) a statement that all actual costs of the care, keeping, and disposition of the
dog are the responsibility of the dog owner, except to the extent that a court or
hearing officer finds that the seizure or impoundment was not substantially
justified by law.
Subd. 4. Right to hearing.
The owner of any dog declared dangerous has the right to a hearing by an
impartial hearing officer designated by the animal control authority. The dog
owner must make the request in writing, on a form provided by the SLMPD,
within 14 days of the dangerous dog declaration. Failure to do so within 14 days
of the date of notice will terminate the owner's right to a hearing under this
section.
Any hearing must be held within 14 days of
of the dangerous dog declaration. The hea
person retained by the city or by the SLMP1
that the dangerous dog declaration is uphel
expenses of the hearing up to a maximum
the dog's owner. The hearing officer shall iE
ten days after the hearing. The decision mL
hand delivery or registered mail as soon as
provided to the animal control authority.
Subd. 5. Dangerous, dog, di
declared dangerous, an ovi
authority review the design
behavior has changed due
of obedience training that,
factors. If the animal contr
behavior has changed, the
Sub& &:Law enforcement
apply to dangerous dogs u
he request; to determine the validity
g officer most be an impartial
to conduct the hearing. In the event
by the hearing officer, actual
$1,000 will be the responsibility of
ue a decision on the matter within
t be:delivered to the dog's—owner by
ractical_ and a copy must be
cation"reviem'Beginning six months after a dog is
may request annually that the animal control
i. The owner must provide evidence that the dog's
ie dog's age, neutering, environment, completion
ies modification of aggressive behavior, or other
thorityfinds sufficient evidence that the dog's
iority may.:rescind the dangerous dog designation.
i. The provisions of this section do not
enforcement officials for police work.
Subd. 7. Exemption. Dogs may not be declared dangerous if the threat, injury, or
damage was sustained by a person:
(1) who was committing, at the time, a willful trespass or other tort upon the
premises occupied by the owner of the dog;
(2) who was provoking, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog or who can
be shown to have repeatedly, in the past, provoked, tormented, abused, or
assaulted the dog; or
(3) who was committing or attempting to commit a crime.
[151
CONFISCATION
Subd. 1. Seizure.
(a) The animal control authority having jurisdiction shall
immediately seize any dangerous dog if:
(1) after the owner has notice that the dog is dangerous, the dog is not
immediately removed from the city, unless an appeal is requested; or
(2) the dog is not maintained in the proper enclosure; or
(3) the dog is outside the proper enclosure and not under physical
restraint of a responsible person as requiredfn subd. 3(a) of the
previous section
(b) If an owner of a dog is convicted ofa: crime for which the:dog was
originally seized, the court may order that the dog be confiscated and
destroyed in a proper and humane manner, and that the owner pay the costs
incurred in confiscating, confining, and destroying. the dog.
Subd. 2. Dogs reclaimed. A dangi
be reclaimed by the owner of the
boarding fees, and presenting prc
authority that the requirements of
A dog not reclaimed under this su
surrendered to the Animal Human
owner is liable to the.animal contr
and disposing of the dog.,
us dog seized under subdivision 1 may
3 upon payment of impounding and
to the appropriate. animal control
bd.3 of the previous section will be met.
vision withm seven days may be
iociety or humanely euthanized and the
authority for costs incurred in confining
bubai'3. Subsequent offenses; seizure.cIf a person has been convicted of a
misdemeanor for violating a provisions this chapter and the person is charged
with a subsequent violation relating to the same dog, the dog must be seized
by the animal control authority having jurisdiction. If the owner is convicted of
the crime for:which the dog was seized, the court shall order that the dog be
destroyed in a proper and humane manner and the owner pay the cost of
confining and destroying the animal. If the person is not convicted of the
crime for which the dog Was seized, the owner may reclaim the dog upon
payment to the animal control authority of a fee for the care and boarding of
the dog. If the dog is not reclaimed by the owner within seven days after the
owner has been notified that the dog may be reclaimed, the dog may be
surrendered to the Animal Humane Society or humanely euthanized and the
owner is liable to the animal control authority for the costs incurred in
confining, impounding, and disposing of the dog.
[16]
PENALTY
(a) A person who violates a provision of this section is guilty of a
misdemeanor.
(b) It is a misdemeanor to remove a microchip from a dangerous or potentially
dangerous dog, to fail to account for a dangerous dog's death or change
of location where the dog will reside, to sign a false affidavit with respect
to a dangerous dog's death or change of location where the dog will
reside, or to fail to disclose ownership of a dangerous dog to a property
owner from whom the person rents property.
(c) A person who is convicted of a second or subsequent violation of
paragraph (a) or (b) is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
DESTRUCTION OF DOGS IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES
Subd. 1. Circumstances
A dog may be destroyed in a proper and humane manner by the animal control
authority if the dog:
(1) Inflicted substantial or great bodily harm on a'human on public or private
property without provocations
(2) Inflicted multiple bites on a human on public or private property without
provocation;;,
(3) Bit multiple human victims on public or private property in the same attack
without provocation; or
W Bit a human on public or private property without provocation in an attack
where more than one dogparticipated in the attack.
Subd. 2. Right to hearing.-;
The animal control authority may not destroy a dog until the dog owner has had
the opportunity for hearing before an impartial hearing officer designated by the
animal control authority.
ANIMAL BREEDERS.
(a) Permit required. No person, business, corporation, or other entity may breed,
whelp, or raise dogs or cats for profit or sale within the city unless the person,
business, corporation, or other entity has obtained a breeder's permit from the
city.
(b) Application for breeder's permit. Anyone making application for a breeder's
permit must provide the following information to the office of the city
[l7l
clerk/treasurer: applicant's name, applicant's address, address of the location of
where the breeding, whelping, or raising will occur, the types and breeds of
animals concerned, and the numbers of adult animals to be kept for breeding
purposes. The applicant must also demonstrate that the location where the
breeding, whelping, or raising will occur is suitably zoned for such activity or must
obtain a variance from the city council.
(c) Approval of permit. After application for a breeder's permit has been made, a
copy of the application shall be forwarded to the animal control officer. The
animal control officer shall inspect the facility to ensure that it is suitable for its
intended purpose. The breeder's permit will be issued by the city clerk/treasurer's
office after the facility described in the application has been inspected and
approved by the animal control officer and after the,applicant has been paid the
permit fee. The fee for a breeder's permit shall be set by resolution of the city
council.
(d) Permit duration. A breeder's permit, once issued, will expire on December 31
after the issue date. The fee will be prorated at the rate of 1/12 of the annual fee
for each of the remaining months of the year when the,breeder's permit is
purchased.
(e) Inspection of premises after issuance of permit. Any animal control officer,
police officer, building inspector or other agent of the city may inspect any
premises licensed under this section at any reasonable time, with or without prior
notice, to determine whether or not conditions of the premises are maintained in
a proper manner.
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION.
Unless otherwise specified, violations of this chapter are declared to be
misdemeanor offenses.
June 19, 2012
[18]
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 960-7900
FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhall®ci.shorewood.mmus
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 14 September 2011
RE: Animal Regulations - Dogs
FILE NO. City Code (Chapter 701)
The City Council recently reviewed a number of ordinances that require licensing by the City. The
purpose of the review was to determine if the ordinances are still valid or are in need of update.
The discussion began with an analysis prepared by the City Administrator (an excerpt of which is
attached as Exhibit A). A number of issues were raised in the discussion:
1. Should the City continue to license dogs?
2. The Code needs to be updated to be consistent with state statutes relative to kennels?
3. Should there be limit on the number of dogs kept in a home? If so, how many?
4. Should there be a license for multiple dogs?
5. State statutes address the issue of dangerous dogs — should the City address a preceding level of
dog classification — "potentially dangerous dog"?
In light of these questions, the chapter of the City Code relating to dogs has been referred to the
Planning Commission for its review and comment. Chapter 701 is attached for your review.
One of the questions raised in the Council's discussion was whether it was necessary for a dog to be
licensed in order to bring the dog to the new Minnewashta Dog Park. We contacted Mr. Lenny
Kievan Schmitz, Three Rivers Park District to find out. While the dog park rules require dogs to be
"properly licensed", the rule is essentially advisory. The District recognizes that the various
jurisdictions have different rules relative to licensing — some have no licensing requirement. A dog
from a city that does not require licensing is properly licensed.
It is worth noting that the four other South Lake communities — Tonka Bay, Excelsior, Greenwood
and Deephaven, all require dog licenses.
This item has been placed on the 20 September Planning Commission agenda for discussion.
Cc: Brian Heck
Jean Panchyshyn
co PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
City of Shorewood Licensing and Permit
Analysis and Report
Purpose
This report will outline the various non -building permits and licenses the city issues and the statutory
authority for the permit or license. We will discuss the purpose of the license, the cost of the license,
and the estimated annual revenue from the license or permit. Finally, we will address any what, if any,
changes or modifications might be necessary.
Dog Licensing
Minnesota Statute Chapter 412.221 subdivison 21 provides specific authority to city councils to enact
ordinances to regulate animals.
"412.221 Subd 21. Animals. The council shall have the power by ordinance to regulate
the keeping of animals, to restrain their running at large, to authorize their impounding
and sale or summary destruction, and to establish pounds, and to license and regulate
riding academies. "
Purpose for License: the licensing program appears to have its roots in ensuring domestic animals
received vaccination against rabies and also to provide a method of identification should the animal run
off.
Financial Implication: the city issues approximately 350 dog licenses each year at $10.00 per license
for approximately $3,500 in revenue. Starting late last year, we started offering the purchase of dog
license on our website. We do not know if this new option will increase the number of licenses.
Discussion: several communities repealed their dog license ordinance and replaced them with a
requirement that all dogs have rabies tags, owner information, and identification chip. One of the main
reasons for repeal is the fee charged does not cover the administration cost of the program and a
majority of the dog owners did not receive a license. Most recently, Golden Valley reconsidered their
license program and, based on a couple of residents, opted to keep the program and increase the fee.
The rational for keeping the license is the residents who wanted to keep the program used the
Minneapolis Dog Park and all dogs using the dog park are required to have a license.
The other item to consider is including other animals, such as farm animals. Several communities
prohibit "livestock" such as cows, goats, etc, but allow chickens, geese, ducks, etc. At this time, the city
does not have any restriction on the type or number of animals a resident can keep.
Exhibit A
Kennel Licensing
Minnesota Statute 347.31 to 347.40 covers kennel licenses and gives specific authority to license
kennels to the Minnesota Board of Animal Health. It appears that cities do not possess the authority to
also license kennels.
Purpose for License: the city requires residents who have more than three dogs to obtain a kennel
license. I am not sure why the city adopted this requirement other than to provide
a means to allow residents to keep multiple dogs. However, the dog license ordinance does not restrict
the number of dogs per household.
Financial Implications: the initial cost for a kennel license is $25.00 with a $10.00 annual renewal.
This is in addition to the individual dog license. The city only has about 12 few of these licenses with
total revenue of approximately $120.
Discussion: Based on staff's interpretation of Statute, the city does not have statutory authority to
license or regulate kennels and as such, the license needs modification or repeal. One simple
amendment is to change the title from kennel license to multiple dog (or animal) permit.
CHAPTER 701
DOGS
Section
701.01
Purpose
701.02
Definitions
701.03
Enforcement
701.04
Registration and licensing requirements
701.05
Limitations on number of dogs
701.06
Running at large
701.07
Dog nuisances
701.08
Confinement of certain dogs
701.09
Impoundment and redemption procedures
701.10
Rabies control
701.11
Destruction of certain dogs
701.12
Prohibited acts and conditions
701.13
Violation
701.01 PURPOSE.
The City Council recognizes and reaffirms that residents have rights to own, harbor, and keep
dogs, and that from time to time these animals behave in ways that constitute a public nuisance. The
Council finds that the present city code addresses the actions of dogs or their owners as criminal in
nature, and enforcement sanctions have not been fully effective in abating these nuisances. The
purpose of this chapter is to state clearly that the public nuisances caused by dogs may also be subject
to civil legal procedures to abate nuisance conditions that exist on a property. It also addresses the
conditions under which noises by the animals may be considered untimely.
(Ord. 398, passed 9-8-2003)
701.02 DEFINITIONS.
For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly
indicates or requires a different meaning.
Exhibit B
701-1
701.02 Shorewood - Animal Regulations 701.04
ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. Any law enforcement officer of the city and the person,
firm or corporation charged by the Council with enforcement of this chapter.
AT LARGE. A dog is at large when it is off the property of its owner and not under restraint.
DOG WASTE DEVICE. The person having custody of the dog must have in their possession a
device for removal of dog feces when in or on city parks, trails, sidewalks, public rights -of -way,
and the Southwest Regional LRT Trail.
RESTRAINT. A dog is under restraint if it is on the premises of the person harboring or keeping
the dog, or if the dog is with the person having custody of it and is effectively restrained provided
that:
a. While it is on any public trail, sidewalk, the Southwest LRT Regional Trail, or along any
public right-of-way (for example, along roadways and streets), it is on a leash no greater
than six feet in length;
b. While it is in any city park, it is on a leash.
OWNER. Any person who owns, harbors or keeps a dog or licensee thereof, or the parents or
guardians of the person under 18 years of age, or any person who owns the property on which a
dog is harbored or kept.
(1987 Code, ' 701.01) (Ord. 81, passed 11-25-74; Am. Ord. 394, passed 4-14-2003; Am. Ord. 398,
passed 9-8-2003)
701.03 ENFORCEMENT.
The Council shall appoint an Animal Enforcement Officer and may enter into a contract with a
person whose duties shall be to enforce this chapter. Any contract so entered shall provide, as the
Council deems fit, certain fees for the keeping and disposal of animals herein governed.
(1987 Code, ' 701.02)
701.04 REGISTRATION AND LICENSING REQUIREMENTS.
Subd. 1. Registration and license required. Every person who owns a dog over the age of six months
shall cause the dog to be registered and licensed as hereinafter provided.
Subd. 2. License tag and fees. All dogs kept in this city, including those allowed by special permit,
shall be registered in the office of the Administrator. The owner shall obtain a license and
tag for each dog and pay for each fee as the City Council may, by resolution, adopt. The
Council may provide for higher license fees for female dogs than for males or spayed
701-2
701.04
Dogs
701.05
females. The license tag shall be securely attached around the dog=s neck and kept there
at all times during the license period. If the tag is lost or stolen, the owner shall receive a
duplicate license and tag upon payment to the Administrator a fee as provided in
1301.02 of this code.
Subd. 3. Rabies inoculation. No license shall be issued for a dog unless the owner shall show written
evidence that the dog has been inoculated for the prevention of rabies within the past two
years.
Subd. 4. Term of license. The license period shall be for the whole or unexpired portion of the year
ending on the ensuing December 31.
Subd. 5. New residents of city. Any person who moves into and becomes a resident of the city and who
owns a dog within the city shall cause the same to be registered and licensed as provided
hereinbefore within a period of not more than 30 days after becoming a resident of the
city.
(1987 Code, 1 701.03) (Ord. 81, passed 11-25-1974; Ord. 173, passed 8-12-1985; Am. Ord. 213,
passed 3-27-1989; Am. Ord. 263, passed 12-14-1992)
701.05 LIMITATIONS ON NUMBER OF DOGS.
Subd. 1. Kennel license. Within the limits of the city, no more than two dogs over the age of six months
shall be allowed in any household unless the owners shall first obtain a kennel license.
This license shall allow an owner to keep up to four dogs over the age of six months. Any
person desiring a kennel license shall make written application upon a form prescribed by
and containing the information as required by the city. Every owner is required to keep a
valid, individual license tag securely fastened to the dog=s collar or harness. The owner
shall pay a fee for the kennel license as provided in ' 1302 of this code. This license shall
be valid for the period of one year, beginning on January 1 and ending on December 31,
and is nontransferable. The application shall contain the following information:
a. The number of dogs over the age of six months to be maintained on the premises;
b. A description of the real estate property upon which the animals will be kept;
c. Written authorization for the city to inspect the premises which shall be valid for the
length of the license. Application for a renewal license shall be inspected upon receipt of
complaints. The inspection shall be to confirm compliance with the following criteria:
701-3
701.05 Shorewood - Animal Regulations 701.05
(1) If an outdoor kennel is provided, it must be constructed of suitable material to
maintain and secure the keeping of dogs and to allow for sufficient space for the
dogs. Standards for adequate shelter for dogs is specified in M.S. ' 343.40 and is
adopted by reference, including any amendments to that section. The space must be
inspected and approved by the Animal Enforcement Officer. All surfaces must be
constructed of material to provide for proper cleaning, drainage and maintenance and
needs of the dogs. Kennel structures must be located within the prescribed setback
requirements for the property and shall be located at least ten feet from the property
boundary. All fences shall be located entirely upon the property of the fence owner.
No boundary line fence shall be erected closer than three feet to an existing parallel
boundary line fence;
(2) Owners must ensure that dogs kept on a licensed premises do not create a nuisance by
excessive barking or by creating unsanitary conditions.
d. Notification of any prior violations during the previous licensing period.
Subd. 2. Denial of license. The city may deny any license request based upon one or more of the
following:
a. The Animal Enforcement Officer finds the kennel facilities inadequate;
b. Conditions of the license are not met;
c. A nuisance condition is found to be created by the dogs or owner;
d. The kennel creates a public health and safety hazard or has placed the animals in an
unreasonable endangerment. The city shall investigate all complaints and may issue a
citation for violations. After a complaint has been received and found to be valid
regarding a kennel license, the holder of the license shall appear before the City Council
to state or explain their position. The appearance shall be within 30 days of the initial
complaint and after notification of all contiguous property owners. The City Council will
then decide the status of the license.
Subd. 3. Exceptions.
a. An applicant may apply to the City Council for an exception to the maximum number of
dogs allowed per property.
b. This section shall not apply to nonresidents or dogs kept within the city for less than 30
continuous days.
701-4
701.05 Dogs 701.07
Subd. 4. Revocation of kennel license. In addition to any other sanctions herein provided, violation of
any of the terms of this chapter shall be grounds for termination of the privilege of
keeping up to four dogs, and the license may be revoked. Revocation may occur for a
violation attributable to any dog kept by the owners.
(1987 Code, ' 701.04) (Ord. 299, passed 6-12-1995)
701.06 RUNNING AT LARGE.
It shall be unlawful for the dog of any person who owns, harbors or keeps a dog, to run at large.
The finding of any dog running at large shall be prima facie evidence of violation of this section by the
owner of the dog.
(1987 Code, ' 701.05) (Ord. 213, passed 3-27-1989)
701.07 DOG NUISANCES.
Subd. 1. It shall be unlawful for any owner to fail to exercise proper care and control of his animals to
prevent them from becoming a public nuisance.
Subd. 2. It shall be considered a nuisance for any animal to bark excessively, continuously or untimely,
to frequent school grounds, parks, or public beaches, to chase vehicles, to molest, annoy
or bite any person if the person is not on the property of the owner or custodian of the
animal, to molest, defile or destroy any property, public or private, or to defecate in or
upon public property or the property of another without being cleaned up immediately by
the person in charge of the animal. The person having custody of the dog is responsible
for disposing of the dog feces in a sanitary manner. Failure on the part of the owner or
custodian to prevent his animals from committing an act of nuisance shall subject the
owner or custodian to the penalty hereinafter provided.
Subd. 3. The phrase TO BARK EXCESSIVELY, CONTINUOUSLY OR UNTIMEL Y includes, but is
not limited to, the creation of any noise by any single or combination of dogs which can
be heard by any person, including a law enforcement officer or animal control officer,
from a location outside of the building or premises where the dog is being kept and which
noise occurs repeatedly over at least a five minute period of time with one minute or less
lapse of time between each animal noise during the five minute period. UNTIMELY
includes, but is not limited to, the noise which occurs repeatedly over a two -minute period
of time with one -minute or less lapse of time between each animal noise during the two -
minute period between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
(1987 Code, ' 701.06) (Ord. 232, passed 9-10-1990; Ord. 334, passed 4-27-1998; Am. Ord. 394,
passed 4-14-2003; Am. Ord. 398, passed 9-8-2003)
701-5
701.08 Shorewood - Animal Regulations 701.09
701.08 CONFINEMENT OF CERTAIN DOGS.
Every dog in heat shall be confined in a building or other secure enclosure in the manner that the
dog cannot come into contact with another dog, except for planned breeding.
(1987 Code, ' 701.07) (Ord. 213, passed 3-27-1989)
701.09 IMPOUNDMENT AND REDEMPTION PROCEDURES.
Subd. 1. Authority to impound, citations. The person charged with the enforcement of this chapter shall
have authority to take into custody and impound those dogs found at large within the city.
If the Animal Enforcement Officer is unable to take a dog into custody, he or she may,
where possible, follow the dog to the property of its owner and may issue a citation to the
owner for violation of this chapter. The Officer shall not be authorized to take into
custody a dog once it is upon the property of its owner except where the officer finds no
one present upon the property and custody is necessary to prevent the dog from further
running at large or except in those instances hereinafter prescribed where the custody is
required or permitted for the health and welfare of the public.
Subd. 2. Pound. The city shall provide an adequate pound or facilities where dogs taken into custody by
an Animal Enforcement Officer shall be kept and properly fed until disposed of according
to the provisions of this chapter.
Subd. 3. Notice of impoundment. Within 24 hours after taking a dog into custody, the Animal
Enforcement Officer shall, if the animal has on it an official tag, notify the person shown
as owner of the dog that the animal is in his or her custody and will not be disposed of if
redeemed within a stated time, which time shall not be less than five full days after the
animal was taken into custody.
Subd. 4. Redemption by owner. Every owner or person having the custody of a dog may redeem the
same from the Animal Enforcement Officer by paying for board and associated costs for
each day or fraction thereof as the animal is held in custody by the Animal Enforcement
Officer and obtaining a license for the animal in accordance with this chapter if the
license has not hereinbefore been issued for the animal. The associated costs shall include
an impounding fee set by resolution of the City Council from time to time. In determining
the impounding fee, the Council may establish a schedule of fees based on the number of
times a dog has been impounded. In addition to the payment of the board, licensing and
associated costs set forth in this section, the owner shall remain subject to all other
penalties contained in this chapter.
701-6
701.09 Dogs 701.10
Subd. 5. Disposition of unclaimed or injured dogs. Upon expiration of the five day period, a dog in the
custody of the Animal Enforcement Officer shall be euthanized. Nothing in this chapter
shall prevent the Animal Enforcement Officer from causing the dog to be euthanized in
less than five days waiting period as aforesaid where the animal is injured and, in the
opinion of the owner or veterinarian, the only humane act would be one of disposal.
Subd. 6. Records kept. The Animal Enforcement Officer shall keep an accurate account of all animals
received at the pound and all animals killed and released therefrom.
(1987 Code, ' 701.08) (Ord. 81, passed 11-25-1974; Ord. 213, passed 3-27-1989)
701.10 RABIES CONTROL.
Subd. 1. Quarantine of biting dogs.
a. Upon a sworn, written complaint being filed with the City Administrator/Clerk stating
that a dog has bitten a human being and setting forth the name of the dog, if known, and
the name and address of the owner or custodian, if known, the name of the person bitten
and when and where the incident occurred, the Animal Enforcement Officer shall order
the dog quarantined for a period of ten days. During quarantine, the animal shall be
securely confined and kept from contact with any other animal.
b. At the discretion of the Animal Enforcement Officer, the quarantine may be on the
premises of the owner. If the Animal Enforcement Officer so requires, the owner shall, at
his or her own expense, place the animal in a veterinary hospital for the period of
confinement or surrender the animal to the Animal Enforcement Officer for confinement.
The dog shall not be released from confinement until a licensed veterinarian has certified
the animal to be free from rabies and until the owner has paid the costs of any veterinary
tests made upon the animal as well as the costs of any confinement on premises other than
that of the owner.
c. If the costs are not paid by the owner or custodian within ten days following written
notice to the owner or custodian that the dog is available for release, the Animal
Enforcement Officer shall forthwith cause the dog to be euthanized.
d. Any person who shall fail to deliver up to the Animal Enforcement Officer any dog which
has bitten a human being and against which a sworn, written complaint has been filed
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day=s neglect or failure to comply with the
provisions of this subdivision shall be deemed a separate offense.
701-7
701.10 Shorewood - Animal Regulations 701.11
Subd. 2. Rabies in city, proclamation.
a. Investigation for presence of rabies. It shall be the duty of the Health Officer to
investigate when a written complaint shall be made to him or her or to the City
Administrator/Clerk that rabies exist in the city and determine whether or not rabies does
exist in the city.
b. Proclamation.
(1) If, on the investigation, the Health Officer determines that rabies does exist in the
city, the Health Officer shall thereupon make and file a proclamation setting forth the
fact of the investigation and determination and also in the proclamation prohibit the
owner or custodian of any dog from permitting or allowing the dogs to be at large
within the city unless effectively muzzled so that it cannot bite any other animal or
person.
(2) The proclamation, when issued, shall be filed with the Administrator and it shall be
the duty of the Administrator to forthwith publish a copy thereof in the official legal
newspaper of the city and to post a copy of the proclamation in three public places
within the city. The proclamation shall be deemed effective and in full force five days
after publication and posting of copies thereof and shall remain in full force and
effect for a period of time designated in the proclamation but not to exceed six
months.
c. Dogs at large to be muzzled. It shall be unlawful for the owner or custodian of any dog to
suffer or permit it to be at large either on the premises of the owner or elsewhere within
the city during the time the proclamation is in force unless the dog shall be effectively
muzzled so that it cannot bite any other animal or person.
d.. Destruction of unmuzzled dogs. It shall be lawful for any police officer or the Animal
Enforcement Officer of this city to destroy any dog running at large on the public streets
or roads of this city in violation of the provisions of the proclamation.
(1987 Code, ' 701.09) (Ord. 81, passed I1-25-1974; Ord. 213, passed 3-27-1989) Penalty, see
104.01
701.11 DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN DOGS.
Subd. 1. Upon sworn complaint to the Hennepin County District Court that any one of the following
facts exists:
a. That any dog at any time has destroyed property or habitually trespasses in a damaging
manner on property of persons other than the owner;
b. That any dog at any time has attacked or bitten a person outside the owner=s or
custodian=s premises;
701-8
701.11
Dogs
701.13
c. That any dog is vicious or shows vicious habits or molests pedestrians or interferes with
the driving of automobiles on the public streets or highways;
d. That any dog is a public nuisance;
e. That any dog is running at large in violation of this chapter;
Subd. 2. The judge or clerk of the court shall issue a summons directed to the owner of the dog
commanding him or her to appear before the judge to show cause why the dog should not
be seized and euthanized by the Animal Enforcement Officer or otherwise disposed of.
Upon the hearing and finding the facts true as complained of, the judge may either order
the dog euthanized or the owner or custodian to remove it from the city or may order the
owner or custodian to keep it confined to a designated place. If the owner or custodian
disobeys the order, he or she shall be in violation of this chapter and the Animal
Enforcement Officer may, upon disobedience of the order, impound or dispose of the dog
described in the order. The costs of all proceedings described herein shall be assessed
against the owner or custodian of the dog, if the facts in the compliant are found to be true
or to the complainant if the facts are found to be untrue.
(1987 Code, ' 701.10) (Ord. 213, passed 3-27-1989)
701.12 PROHIBITED ACTS AND CONDITIONS.
Subd. 1. Improper care. It shall be unlawful for any owner to fail to provide animals with sufficient
good and wholesome food and water, proper shelter and protection from the weather,
veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering and with humane care and treatment.
Subd. 2. Cruelty to dogs. It shall be unlawful for any owner to beat, cruelly ill-treat, torment or
otherwise abuse any dog.
(1987 Code, ' 701.11) Penalty, see ' 104.01
701.13 VIOLATION.
Any person violating any provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(1987 Code, ' 701.12) (Ord. 81, passed 11-25-1974) Penalty, see ' 104.01
701-9
CITY OF /D�� t," s3,o �6a�y clr(
g c, r
SHOREWOC Ary S1114d"501(l r�.
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWO(
FAX (952) 474-0128 • wwwxi.shorewc
u u 1 : a ► ul
TO: Planning Commission
Brad Nielsen, Director of Planning
FROM: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator
DATE: July 22, 2003
SUBJECT: Dog Nuisance Regulations
✓' 'i �yteLituw(T" Zo925
/ Ptust�
✓ �r 20 965 �a,� r e�,,�
✓�ul,n N io�1�t� Sltis? Pfl
In June, the City Council received a petition from neighborhood residents regarding an on -going
issue of barking dogs at specified residences. As staff studied the issue and later reported to the
Council, the primary issue was how the nuisance could be abated (see attached staff memorandum).
One of the residents had paid $95 criminal citations several times, and the dogs remained at the
property and to bark in violation of the City Code. The residents wanted the dogs' behavior to
comply with the Code or have the dogs removed.
In the staff memorandum and in Council discussion, several suggestions were made to amend the dog
nuisance regulations. Council wished to have Planning Commission comments on them prior to
amending the Code.
Clarify Violation as a Property Nuisance
The Code currently identifies a nuisance as the criminal acts of dogs or dog owners. Upon violation,
the dog owner may be issued a citation or prosecuted for a misdemeanor (the Hennepin District Court
currently classifies this offense as a petty misdemeanor, however). If prosecuted and convicted, the
dog owner could be fined and/or sentenced to the workhouse, although probation is a more likely
sanction. Criminal prosecution and conviction does not result in the dog(s) being removed, but may
result in an incentive for the owner to remove it.
Barking dog violations could more clearly be made a property nuisance, and thus prosecuted as a
matter of civil law for conditions that exist on the property. Thus it would not matter which or how
many dogs were barking, or who the owner of the dog(s) were; rather, the fact that a violation
occurred on the property would result in a civil action that resulted in compliant animals or removal
of the nuisance. It would also provide the City added leverage in cases where properties were rented.
In a sense, this approach is similar to such property nuisances as junk or improper storage on the site
— the owner would need to bring the property into compliance, or the City or Court could have the
nuisance removed.
40 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Planning Commission
Revisions to Dog Nuisance Regulations
Page Two
The Council preferred that the property nuisance approach be made clearer in the Code. It also
thought that there might be other definitions of violations or thresholds for criminal prosecutions to
consider including in revisions to the Code.
Recommended Chances:
1) A simple way to clarify that owners of property are covered under these regulations is to change
the definition in Section 701.01 of the Code:
Subd. 2 DOG OWNER: Any person who owns, harbors, or keeps a dog or licensee thereof,
or the parents or guardians of such person under eighteen (18) years of age: o. r any
person who owns the property on which a dog is harbored or kept.
This definition will save the need to add "or owner of property on which a dog is kept"
throughout this chapter of the Code. The references in the Code specifically to dog owners are
limited and provide the appropriate distinction when stated.
2) Dog nuisances are detailed in Section 701.06 of the Code. With the change in the definition of
"owner" to include the owner of the property on which dogs are kept, the civil nature of the
nuisance is clarified. The ordinance to amend the Code would have a "purpose" section to clarify
that these amendments were made to clarify the City's intent that regulations have both civil and
criminal sanctions.
The second paragraph of this section relates to standards for violations. Shorewood and many
other cities included performance standards following court decisions that found most cities'
regulations to rely on subjective and non -uniform interpretation. It has two points that should be
addressed. One is a technical change (shown as underlined):, and the other has to do with the
term "untimely".
The phrase "to bark excessively, continuously, or untimely" includes, but is not limited to, the
creation of any noise by any single or combination of dogs which can be heard by any person,
including a law enforcement officer or animal control officer, from a location outside of the
building or premises where the dog is kept and which noise occurs repeatedly over a five- (5)
minute period of time with one minute or less lapse of time between each animal noise during
the five- (5) minute period.
The technical change would remove the need to differentiate which dog is making noises in
violation; rather, all dog noises that may arise during the five-minute period count.
That the noise occurs "repeatedly" is a term of art that is found in ordinances of many other cities.
"Regularly" or "intermittently" may be common-sense alternatives showing a pattern of behavior.
3) The term "untimely" that occurs in this second paragraph of Section 701.16 is also a matter of art,
and is something that most people know when they hear it. There would probably be general
agreement that a dog barking once or twice at 2:30 a.m. for several nights is barking untimely.
Planning Commission
Revisions to Dog Nuisance Regulations
Page Three
Some residents may wish to have a long quiet period established, say from 10:00 p.m. to 8:00
a.m. Others will point out that animals, including people and dogs, respond to sunrises and
sunsets, and in the summer they would be active from 5:00 a.m. to well past 10:00 p.m. Some
guiding language would be helpful in characterizing "untimely".
As a suggestion, "untimely" could be listed as 12:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m., and added as follows:
The phrase "to bark excessively, continuously, or untimely" includes, but is not limited to ...
which noise occurs repeatedly over a five- (5) minute period of time with one minute or less
lapse of time between each animal noise during the five_ (5) minute period or which occurs
repeatedly between 12:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m.
This provision provides a performance standard (i.e., time of activity) and would not rely on the
five-minute frequency standard.
Additional Considerations:
ThOPe were also suggestions that something akin to a "three -strike rule" be put in the Code, such that
with or after a third citation the owner(s) would be prosecuted criminally. In a brief request for
information, only one of the respondent cities had such a provision. Legal counsel advises that such a
provision could limit the City's flexibility to take appropriate enforcement actions. South Lake
Minnetonka Police Department staff also note several practical limitations in terms of internal
information systems and in terms of coordinating information with Orono, who provides animal
control services. Council did ask the Commission to comment on the "three -strikes" type of concept.
Assistant Chief John Neiling plans to be present to discuss all of the matters in this memorandum
with the Commission.
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall @ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator
DATE: June 19, 2003
SUBJECT: Barking Dog Complaints, Suburban Drive/Forest Road/ldlewild Path Area
At the June 9 meeting, the Council was presented with a petition from owners of 14 properties in this
area who believed that there are dogs at two properties in the area whose barking is "excessive,
continuous, and untimely." After hearing the residents' concerns expressed under "Matters from the
Floor", the Council directed that staff identify what courses of action could be pursued to address
their requests.
The core issue appears to be, How can the nuisance (as excessive barking by dogs is defined) be
abated? This issue is discussed beginning at the end of Page 2 of this memorandum, after the
following background. Legal remedies are covered on Page 4.
Barking Does: Kennel Licenses
The "dog ordinance" is found in Chapter 701 of the City Code. Doe nuisances are covered in Section
701.06:
• "It shall be unlawful for any owner to fail to exercise proper care and control of his animals to
prevent them from becoming a public nuisance."
• "It shall be considered a nuisance for any animal to bark excessively, continuously, or
untimely ..." (Emphasis added. This condition is cited in the residents' petition.)
• "Failure on the part of the owner or custodian to prevent his animals from committing an act
of nuisance shall subject the owner or custodian to the penalty hereinafter provided."
• "The phrase `to bark excessively, continuously or untimely' includes, but is not limited to, the
creation of any noise by any dog which can be heard by any person, including a law
enforcement officer or animal control officer, from a location outside of the building or
premises where the dog is being kept and which noise occurs repeatedly over at least a five-
(5-) minute period of time with one minute or less lapse of time between each animal noise
during the five- (5-) minute period."
i• PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Dog Issues — Suburban Drive/Forest Road/ldlewild Path
June 23, 2003, City Council Meeting
Page 2
When staff prepared a response to Mr. Schneider's concerns last summer, staff surveyed other
communities in the southwestern metro area and found that Shorewood's "performance standards"
were typical. For example, Excelsior, Hopkins, and Plymouth use the five-minute standard; Eden
Prairie and Minnetonka have a ten-minute standard. As a matter of enforcement that will hold up in
court, police officers issue citations when the performance standard is violated. While the ordinance
suggests that other conditions may exist that constitute violations, they would likely be subjective in
nature and may be difficult to prevail on.
Dog kennels are covered in Section 701.04 of the City Code. A dog kennel license is required when
one keeps three or four dogs (or more dogs if Council grants an exception) over six months of age.
Among the reasons that the one-year kennel license may be revoked is that "a nuisance condition is
found to be created by the dogs or owner." Any violation of Chapter 701 of the Code "shall be
grounds for termination of the privilege of keeping up to four (4) dogs"; the owner still could keep up
to two dogs, for which no kennel license is necessary.
Section 701.03 requires dogs over six months old to be registered and licensed. The primary purpose
for licensing is public health, to ensure that dogs have been inoculated for rabies. Failure to license
dogs results in greater penalties for owners whose dogs are caught running at large, and certainly for
the dogs themselves, as they may be euthanized if not claimed within five days. Technically, anyone
who owns a dog and does not register it is committing a misdemeanor; rarely, however, is someone
prosecuted for this charge alone.
Police Resonses
SLMPD officers had responded to over 40 calls for service by Mr. Schneider in 2001, and over 30
calls for service prior to Mr. Schneider's appearance at the June 24, 2002, City Council meeting.
Since that appearance, SLMPD has responded to 45 calls for service by Mr. Schneider. All tolled,
SLMPD has made over 105 responses in 29 months. Law enforcement has been very responsive to
requests for service in the area, and the efforts are well documented.
SLMPD issued one citation to a Forest Road address during the first half of 2002. After Mr.
Schneider's appearance at the June 24, 2002, Council meeting, SLMPD issued two citations in 2002
and three citations in 2003 to the 20965 Forest Road address. It responded to three calls regarding
20925 Forest Road in late-2002, and no grounds for citations were present upon response. Hennepin
County Court lists a $95 fine for dog nuisances. If the SLMPD officer is unable to serve a citation to
a resident at the property, the Department subsequently mails the citation to the owner.
Police reports regarding the 20965 property consistently refer to "two black dogs" or "two black
Labs", thus indicating that a kennel license is not necessary. The animal control officer for the Orono
Police Department, from which the City contracts for animal control services, visited the properties
during the week of June 16. He heard two dogs at 20965 Forest Road, and saw four dogs at 20925
Forest Road which complies with the kennel license issued there. At the latter address, the officer
noted the kennel facilities were quite satisfactory and the dogs appeared well cared for.
Dog Issues — Suburban Drive/Forest Road/Idlewild Path
June 23, 2003, City Council Meeting
Page 3
Police reports indicate that officers have spent anywhere from five to thirty minutes responding to
calls, with a typical stay of 13 to 15 minutes. They note that while dogs may be barking often, it is
not in a continuous manner to constitute a violation. They often note that dogs in the neighborhood
are barking, of which the dogs at the Forest Road addresses may be a part.
Alternative Anoroaches
Nuisances are addressed, as a matter of law, on an incident -by -incident basis after they have been
established to exist. Police do not take actions to prevent nuisances; rather, laws tell residents what
the consequences of nuisances are.
Dogs are considered property. Owners of dogs have property rights protection.
With this legal framework, owners of dogs barking in violation of the City Code have rights to due
process — the City may not just come in and remove dogs. With kennel licenses, for example, the
licensee must appear in front of the Council within 30 days after a complaint has been found to be
valid. Even upon revocation, the person may keep two dogs (i.e., under terms not requiring a kennel
license).
Under the current system, dogs or their owners constitute the nuisance. Dog owners may choose to
pay fines when violations occur, or they may choose to take steps that will result in fewer citations.
violations occur to be a public nuisance. This chance would also have the effect of making the
proyerly owner, who may or may not be the dog owner, responsible for the nuisance. The City
would need to prosecute and win convictions of the nuisances, as the issuance of a citation does not
establish guilt. A graduated system of sanctions could also be developed.
It would also be helpful to clarify in the current Code that a nuisance exists when dogs, rather than an
individual dog, on a property are barking in violation of the performance standards.
Redress as Requested in the Petition
In their petition, the residents requested that the City take four actions. The City is limited in
addressing each of them.
All kennel permits be revoked from both residences immediately.
A kennel permit is required only for 20925 Forest Road. Revocation may not be considered
until a valid complaint (i.e., existing violation) is made. A complaint is validated by SLMPD
or Orono animal control, as they are disinterested and trained third parties. Licensees have a
right to appear before the City Council prior to revocation of their licenses.
Dog Issues — Suburban Drive/Forest Road/Idlewild Path
June 23, 2003, City Council Meeting
Page 4
2. Orono Animal Control is consulted to make sure the prover care is provided to the animals in
Question.
Orono animal control observes whether kennel facilities are adequate, or whether the animals
are in "unreasonable endangerment." If deficiencies exist, it will instruct owners what
conditions must be met to comply with the kennel license.
Citations issued over the next 90 days when complaints are made.
Citations may be issued whenever complaints are made and the law enforcement officer or
animal control officer observes a violation.
4. If the problem continues after 90 days, we are asking that the dogs be removed from the
owners of both residences and placed in animal shelters.
The owners of the properties have rights to due process before their animals may be
confiscated. The current legal framework does not permit the City simply to remove dogs.
Under the kennel license situation, the City would need to obtain a court order if the licensee
failed to remove all but two dogs. In either case, as the order would be written to require
compliance, the City could request but the court would not need to specify that the dogs
removed be placed in animal shelters.
Leeal Remedies
1) Criminal Nuisance Action: The City Prosecutor would appear to have grounds for action on
misdemeanor violations. Penalties upon conviction would include up to 90 days in jail and/or up
to a $700 fine.
2) Civil Nuisance Action: The City Attorney could file for the Court to order abatement of the
nuisance. if the nuisance is not abated per the Court order, the dog owner/property owner would
be in contempt of court and subject to arrest.
3) Private Action: According to Section 701.10 of the City Code (attached), anyone may make a
sworn complaint to Hennepin District Court that a dog is a public nuisance. The Court then
issues a summons to the owner of the dog, who then must show why it should not be seized and
euthanized by the Animal Control Officer. If the complaint is found to be true, the dog owner
bears all costs; if untrue, the complainant bears all costs.
To staffs knowledge, this process has not been used since the ordinance establishing it was
adopted in 1989. The Court would handle such a complaint when the filing fee is paid.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
The Council should direct whether and in what manner the City's dog ordinance should be
amended (see p. 3 — clarifying status as a "property" nuisance, as well as a dog/owner nuisance).
Staff will proceed with legal actions unless otherwise directed by Council.
Pat Fasching
crom: Doug Mann poug.Mann a@ebf.com]
,ent: Friday, July 11, 2003 1:18 PM
To: 'cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us'
Subject: Dog Barking
I was interested to read the recent Sun -Sailor newspaper article on the
issue of dogs barking in Shorewood; particularly that the city council
considered the language of the dog barking ordinance in the municipal code.
I understand how it can be difficult to formulate wording as to "frequency"
of barking, but I'm wondering if we can't be more specific about "untimely",
i.e. No dog barking (period!) between the hours of 1Opm and 8AM. To just
say "untimely" is open to individual interpretation - my neighbor thinks
it's ok for her dog to bark at 6Am any day (though within the "frequency"
guidelines) because that's when she gets up in the morning. This means all
the neighbors have a built-in alarm clock, but one over which we have no
control! May we have a definitive enforceable definition of "untimely"
added to the code? .
Thanks,
Doug Mann
5310 Shady Hills Circle.
Shorewood, MN55331.
Page 1 of 1
RE: Dog Barking
Jean Panchyshyn
From: Doug Mann
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 5:06 PM
To: Jean Panchyshyn
Subject: RE: Dog Barking
Dear Jean,
C �J2t�D /Po(_i/7
i rt�t(w& 16 o For 04-,
ie S j O(Q, 4 e d �
ctJfjYyl yyl (S S (0 n rat% .
D(�-nwn�e
Thanks for your reply. If there will be a public forum for input to the Planning commission I would appreciate a
notice. A( 5 0 S 2— h I S �{! cJ l Yt C✓ e �c-�- i
Regards, ( C
Doug.
---Original Message-----
From: Jean Panchyshyn[mailto:jpanchyshyn@ci.shorewood.mn.us]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 4:43 PM G✓ v�u w
To: Doug.Mann@ebf.com 8- /S- 03
Subject: RE: Dog Barking
Dear Mr. Mann,
Thank you for your recent email regarding your concern about Barking Dogs in your neighborhood. The
Shorewood Planning Commission
the leOrdinance. our
message o the Planning Director so your commensmay bincluded as part of the Planning
Commission's discussion.
If you have further questions or comments, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Jean Panchyshyn
---------------------
Jean Panchyshyn
Executive Secretary/Deputy Clerk
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood. MN 55331
ph: 952.474.3236 / fax: 952.474.0128
jpanchyshyn @ci.shorewood.mn.uS
7/14/03